Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T02:35:47.917Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Interests in the living body and corpse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2014

David Price
David Price
Affiliation:
De Montfort University, Leicester
Get access

Summary

This chapter critically considers the interests that living individuals have in their bodies whilst they are still alive and once they are dead, and those of the next of kin of deceased persons, and the relative weights of such interests compared with the needs of those requiring body materials for transplantation or of society in researching and developing knowledge of human conditions and their effective treatments. Where such interests exist then compelling reasons are required to override the normal respect which they warrant. This is a subject at the very heart of this work as it points to the proper system of donation which a society should adopt, in terms of whether it is necessary to obtain consent for donation, and from whom. Where an individual interest is infringed this constitutes a legal/moral harm to that person. However, whilst no harm will accrue to an individual who has consented to it, at least not from a liberal or rights perspective, even consented-to acts may constitute public wrongs, proscribed by the criminal law.

Whilst such issues are problematic with regard to the taking and use of human material from the living, the issue of what interests exist with respect to the dead human form is hugely more contentious and the subject of considerably diverse opinion. This diversity manifests itself in varying attitudes to conscription, presumed consent, mandated choice, directed donation, required request and a host of other matters. Inconsistency and confusion in this regard has been harmful to both transplantation and research, and substantial deconstruction is essential. I entertain the interests of the living only, as the dead themselves are not in possession of interests capable of being affected by the actions of others. Nonetheless, prior to their deaths individuals have interests which are capable of being affected by the actions of others after their deaths, including with regard to decisions to donate or not to donate organs or tissues for therapy or research.

Type
Chapter
Information
Human Tissue in Transplantation and Research
A Model Legal and Ethical Donation Framework
 , pp. 43 - 76
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

McGuinness, S. and Brazier, M., ‘Respecting the living means respecting the dead too’ (2008) 28(2) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glannon, W., ‘The case against conscription of cadaveric organs for transplantation’ (2008) 17 Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics330CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spital, A. and Taylor, J. S., ‘In defense of routine recovery of cadaveric organs: A response to Walter Glannon’ (2008) 17 Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, J., Wonderwoman and Superman: The Ethics of Human Biotechnology (Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 100–3Google Scholar
Harris, J., ‘Scientific research is a moral duty’ (2005) 31 Journal of Medical Ethics242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brassington, I., ‘John Harris’ argument for a duty to rescue’ (2007) 21(3) Bioethics160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapshay, S. and Pringle, K., ‘Participation in biomedical research is an imperfect moral duty: A response to John Harris’ (2007) 33 Journal of Medical Ethics414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, J., ‘The survival lottery’ (1975) 50 Philosophy81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Overland, G., ‘Survival lotteries reconsidered’ (2007) 21(7) Bioethics355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fabre, C., Whose Body is it Anyway? (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, R., ‘Comment on Narveson: In defence of equality’ (1983) 1 Social Philosophy and Policy 24 at 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, L. and Nelkin, D., Body Bazaar: The Market for Human Tissue in the Biotechnology Age (New York: Crown Publishers, 2001), p. 13.Google Scholar
Spital, A., ‘Conscription of cadaveric organs for transplantation: Neglected again’ (2003) 13(2) Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spital, A. and Taylor, J. S., ‘Routine recovery: An ethical plan for greatly increasing the supply of transplantable organs’ (2008) 13 Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation 202 at 203CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spital, A. and Taylor, J. S., ‘Routine recovery of cadaveric organs for transplantation: Consistent, fair, and life-saving’ (2007) 2 Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 300 at 301CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, J. S., ‘The myth of posthumous harm’ (2005) 42 American Philosophical Quarterly311Google Scholar
Spital, A. and Erin, C., ‘Conscription of cadaveric organs for transplantation: Let’s at least talk about it’ (2002) 30 American Journal of Kidney Diseases611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, J., ‘Organ procurement: Dead interests, living needs’ (2003) 29 Journal of Medical Ethics 130 at 131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garwood-Gowers, A., ‘Extraction and use of body materials for transplantation and research purposes: The impact of the Human Rights Act 1998’ in Garwood-Gowers, A., Tingle, J. and Lewis, T. (eds.), Healthcare Law: The Impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 (London: Cavendish, 2001) 295 at 308.Google Scholar
Hamer, C. and Rivlin, M., ‘A stronger policy of organ retrieval from cadaveric donors: Some ethical considerations’ (2003) 29 Journal of Medical Ethics 196 at 196CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howard, R., ‘We have an obligation to provide organs for transplantation after we die’ (2006) 6 American Journal of Transplantation1786.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glannon, W., ‘Do the sick have a right to cadaveric organs?’ (2003) 29 Journal of Medical Ethics 153 at 153CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Calabresi, G., ‘Do we own our own bodies?’ (1991) 1 Health Matrix 5 at 7.Google Scholar
Truog, R., ‘Are organs personal property or a societal resource?’ (2005) 5(4) American Journal of Bioethics14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herring, J. and Chau, P.-L., ‘My body, your body, our bodies’ (2007) 15(1) Medical Law Review 34 at 35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McEvoy, K. and Conway, H., ‘The dead, the law, and the politics of the past’ (2004) 31(4) Journal of Law and Society539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, J. W., ‘What is non-private property?’, in Harris, J. W. (ed.), Property Problems: From Genes to Pension Funds (Dordrecht: Kluwer Law International, 1997) 175 at 180–3.Google Scholar
Heller, M., ‘The dynamic analytics of property law’ (2001) 2 Theoretical Inquiries in Law 79 at 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emson, H., ‘Is it immoral to require consent for cadaver organ donation?’ (2003) 29 Journal of Medical Ethics125 at 125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sperling, D., Posthumous Interests: Legal and Ethical Perspectives (Cambridge University Press, 2008), p. 117Google Scholar
Dickens, B., ‘Living tissue and organ donors and property law: More on Moore’ (1992) 8 Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Problems73.Google ScholarPubMed
German National Ethics Council Opinion, Biobanks for research, Berlin, 2004 at 46.Google Scholar
Gitter, D., ‘Ownership of human tissue: A proposal for federal recognition of human research participants’ property rights in their biological material’ (2004) 61 Washington and Lee Law Review257 at 287.Google Scholar
Jonsen, A., ‘Transplantation of fetal tissue: An ethicist’s viewpoint’ (1988) 36 Clinical Research215.Google ScholarPubMed
Iserson, K., ‘Life versus death: Exposing a misapplication of ethical reasoning’ (1994) 5 Journal of Clinical Ethics 261 at 262.Google ScholarPubMed
Sperling, D., ‘Me or mine? On property from personhood, symbolic existence and motivation to donate’, in Weimar, W., Bos, M. and Busschbach, J. (eds.), Organ Transplantation: Ethical, Legal, and Psychosocial Aspects (Lengerich: Pabst Publishing, 2008) 463 at 470.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R., Life’s Dominion (London: Harper Collins, 1993), pp. 199–217.Google Scholar
Belliotti, R., ‘Do dead human beings have rights?’ (1979) The Personalist 201 at 206Google Scholar
Wicclair, M., ‘Ethics and research with deceased patients’ (2008)17 Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 87 at 88CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wicclair, M., ‘Informed consent and research involving the newly dead’ (2002) 12(4) Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feldman, F., Confrontation With the Reaper – A Philosophical Study of the Nature and Value of Death (Oxford University Press, 1992)Google Scholar
Silverstein, H., ‘The evil of death’ (1980) 77(7) Journal of Philosophy401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brecher, B., ‘Our obligations to the dead’ (2002) 19(2) Journal of Applied Philosophy 109 at 113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baier, A., ‘The rights of past and future persons’, in Partridge, E. (ed.), Responsibilities to Future Generations (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1980).Google Scholar
Wilkinson, T., ‘Last rights: The ethics of research on the dead’ (2002) 19(1) Journal of Applied Philosophy 32 at 34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partridge, E., ‘Posthumous interests and posthumous respect’ (1981) 91 Ethics243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waluchow, W., ‘Feinberg’s theory of “preposthumous” harm’ (1986) 25 Dialogue727 at 731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, J., Can Death be a Harm to the Person who Dies? (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2002), p. 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, G. (trans.), Letters, Principal Doctrines and Vatican Sayings (New York: Macmillan, 1964).Google Scholar
Fischer, J. (ed.), The Metaphysics of Death (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1993) at 95.
Kagan, S., Normative Ethics (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1998), pp. 34–5Google Scholar
Feinberg, J., The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law, Vol. I, Harm to Others (Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 84Google Scholar
Buchanan, A., ‘Advance directives and the personal identity problem’ (1988) 17(4) Philosophy and Public Affairs277Google ScholarPubMed
Kuhse, H., ‘Some reflections on the problem of advance directives, personhood and personal identity’ (1999) 9(4) Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levenbook, B., ‘Harming someone after his death’ (1984) 94 Ethics407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callahan, J., ‘On harming the dead’ (1987) 97 Ethics 341 at 343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, T., ‘Death’, in Nagel, T. (ed.), Mortal Questions (Cambridge University Press, 1979).Google Scholar
Steinbock, B., Life Before Birth (Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 25.Google Scholar
Glannon, W., ‘Persons, lives, and posthumous harms’ (2001) 32(2) Journal of Social Philosophy 127 at 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geach, P., God and the Soul (South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press, 1969), pp. 71–2.Google Scholar
Hillel-Ruben, D., Action and its Explanation (Oxford University Press, 2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitcher, G., ‘The misfortunes of the dead’ (1984) 21(2) American Philosophical Quarterly 183 at 187.Google Scholar
Magee, B., Confessions of a Philosopher (London: Phoenix, 1997), pp. 5–6.Google Scholar
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, trans. Thomson, J. (Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1953)Google Scholar
Fabre, C., ‘The choice-based right to bequeath’ (2001) 61 Analysis 60 at 64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penner, J., The Idea of Property (Oxford University Press, 1997)Google Scholar
Raz, J., The Morality of Freedom (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellmann, C., Real Rights (Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 156Google Scholar
Kennedy, I. and Grubb, A., Medical Law, 3rd edn. (London: Butterworths, 2001), p. 1503Google Scholar
Paisley, R., ‘The succession rights of the unborn child’ (2006) 10(1) Edinburgh Law Review28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veatch, R., ‘The newly dead: Mortal remains or organ bank?’, in Veatch, R. (ed.), Death, Dying and the Biological Revolution (New Haven, CT.: Yale University Press, 1989) 197 at 199.Google Scholar
Veatch, R., ‘Consent for perfusion and other dilemmas with organ procurement from non-heart-beating cadavers’, in Arnold, R., Youngner, S., Shapiro, R. and Spicer, C. M. (eds.), Procuring Organs for Transplant: The Debate over Non-Heart-Beating Cadaver Protocols (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995) 195 at 201.Google Scholar
Ochoa, T. and Jones, C., ‘Defiling the dead: Necrophilia and the law’ (1997) 18 Whittier Law Review 539 at 560Google Scholar
Spencer, J., ‘Criminal liability for desecration of a corpse’ [2004] 6 Archbold News 7 at 9.Google Scholar
Nwabueze, R., ‘Donated organs, property rights and the remedial quagmire’ (2008) 16(2) Medical Law Review 201 at 207CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herring, J., ‘Crimes against the dead’, in Brooks-Gordon, B., Ebtehaj, F., Herring, J., Johnson, M. and Richards, M. (eds.), Death Rites and Rights (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2007) 219 at 219.Google Scholar
Quay, P., ‘Utilizing the bodies of the dead’ (1984) 28 Saint Louis University Law Journal 889 at 902Google Scholar
Macklin, R., ‘Dignity is a useless concept’ (2003) 327 British Medical Journal1419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beyleveld, D. and Brownsword, R., Dignity in Bioethics and Biolaw (Oxford University Press, 2002)Google Scholar
Jones, D., Speaking for the Dead (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000), p. 87.Google Scholar
Chadwick, R., ‘Corpses, recycling and therapeutic purposes’, in Lee, R. and Morgan, D., Death Rites (Oxford: Routledge, 1994) 54 at 62.Google Scholar
Feinberg, J., Offense to Others (Oxford University Press, 1985)Google Scholar
Giordano, S., ‘Is the body a republic?’ (2005) 31 Journal of Medical Ethics470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyde, A., Bodies of Law (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997), p. 9.Google Scholar
Kamm, F., Morality, Mortality. Volume 1 (Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 211Google Scholar
Richardson, R., Death, Dissection and the Destitute (University of Chicago Press, 2000).Google Scholar
Sque, M., ‘A dissonant loss: The bereavement of organ donor families’, in Sque, M. and Payne, S. (eds.), Organ and Tissue Donation: An Evidence Base for Practice (Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2007) 59 at 68.Google Scholar
Sque, M., Payne, S., and Clark, J., ‘Gift of life or sacrifice? Key discourses for understanding decision-making by families of organ donors’, in Sque, M. and Payne, S. (eds.), Organ and Tissue Donation: An Evidence Base for Practice (Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2007) 40 at 49Google Scholar
Mongoven, A., ‘Sharing our body and blood: Organ donation and feminist critiques of sacrifice’ (2003) 28 Journal of Medicine and Philosophy89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkinson, T. M., ‘Individual and family consent to organ and tissue donation: Is the current position coherent?’ (2005) 31 Journal of Medical Ethics 587 at 588CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simester, A. and von Hirsch, A., ‘Rethinking the offense principle’ (2002) 8 Legal Theory 269 at 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, A. and Willis, M., ‘They stole my baby’s soul: Narratives of embodiment and loss’ (2005) 31 Medical Humanities 101 at 101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brazier, M. and Fovargue, S., ‘A brief guide to the Human Tissue Act 2004’ (2006) 1 Clinical Ethics 26 at 26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, D. and Garwood-Gowers, A., ‘Transplantation using minors: Are children other people’s medicine?’ (1995) 1(1) Contemporary Issues in Law1.Google Scholar
Knowles, D., ‘Parents’ consent to the post-mortem removal and retention of organs’ (2001) 18(3) Journal of Applied Philosophy215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, T., ‘Parental consent and the use of dead children’s bodies’ [2001] 11(4) Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 337 at 344–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brazier, M., ‘Organ retention and return: Problems of consent’ (2003) 29 Journal of Medical Ethics 30 at 31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×